While task-specific demonstrations show early success in applying large language models (LLMs) to automate some astronomical research tasks, they only provide incomplete views of all necessary capabilities in solving astronomy problems, calling for more thorough understanding of LLMs' strengths and limitations. So far, existing benchmarks and evaluations focus on simple question-answering that primarily tests astronomical knowledge and fails to evaluate the complex reasoning required for real-world research in the discipline. Here, we address this gap by systematically benchmarking five state-of-the-art LLMs on the International Olympiad on Astronomy and Astrophysics (IOAA) exams, which are designed to examine deep conceptual understanding, multi-step derivations, and multimodal analysis. With average scores of 85.6% and 84.2%, Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-5 (the two top-performing models) not only achieve gold medal level performance but also rank in the top two among ~200-300 participants in all four IOAA theory exams evaluated (2022-2025). In comparison, results on the data analysis exams show more divergence. GPT-5 still excels in the exams with an 88.5% average score, ranking top 10 among the participants in the four most recent IOAAs, while other models' performances drop to 48-76%. Furthermore, our in-depth error analysis underscores conceptual reasoning, geometric reasoning, and spatial visualization (52-79% accuracy) as consistent weaknesses among all LLMs. Hence, although LLMs approach peak human performance in theory exams, critical gaps must be addressed before they can serve as autonomous research agents in astronomy.